Have your say in the US Elections

[Paul the 6th]

Well, not that it'll make a difference but interesting to see.

And before anyone starts on about "Why should we care about the US election's?!" like they said about the credit crunch 'if america sneezes, the rest of the west world catches a cold', therefore "If there's a nobber at the helm in the worlds most wealthy/powerful country, we're all in trouble"

[Mr Speirs]

Doesn't really matter who is President (nobber) its the people behind them that are pulling the strings.
It actually makes more sense to put someone stupid in as president as the rest of the world fixate on how stupid and unfit to run a country he is while no one questions the people actually running the country.

[dizzyblonde]

To have another G dubya at the healm would be a disaster, bad move if the 'Mcsame' and 'Failin' get in

[Paul the 6th]

there's some radical republicans out there "hussein obama is a thug from chicago and I believe he's on their side, not our side" ...

because there are actual sides with baddies and goodies like in the films?

[Dappa D]

Obama.....i cant claim to know all his policies etc...but from what ive read and seen on the news...he seems the best choice.....

and hopefully he wont be so trigger happy.....(lets get mugabe etc etc.....no wait iraq has lots and lots of oil ....my precious...lets get saddam)

[Dangerous Dave]

Who ever it will be they will condemn the UK into yet more wars we can't afford financially or in lives!

[Warthog]

Obama all the way I hope. He is from Krypton and his only failing is that he is too awesome.

[Grinch]

What's this US place?

[BanannaMan]

Why should I care who wins the US election????






Oh wait....I live there. #-o

(Go Obama!)

[hang man]

Obama.....i cant claim to know all his policies etc...but from what ive read and seen on the news...he seems the best choice.....

and hopefully he wont be so trigger happy.....(lets get mugabe etc etc.....no wait iraq has lots and lots of oil ....my precious...lets get saddam)

I agree and disagree with you on this one , i agree that he should be the next president .

As for the trigger happy comment i so disagree with you , Sadam had to go the guy was building himself up to another potential Hitler (if you don't believe that I'll be more than happy to send you videos of his work , I've watched a lot of them and they're not pretty) ......First off i give Bush credit for his actions , none of the leaders ever got the balls to go after scum bags like him even after attacks were present from them here ...Take Clinton for example , do you remember USS COLE , The Attempted bombings of the Twin Towers during his presidency?(he didn't do **** about it)...Let me ask you this , what would you have done when your country was attacked and thousands of lives were taken under your presidency?

It's not so easy when it's your decision and the criticism will fall on you no matter what you choose to do , (I for one Salute Bush for his actions)

Get those sons of Bitches , the longer you wait the worse it's going to be in the future...

Let it not be written yet though because when Obama becomes President (or the other guy) he will be Tested in this same manor and at the cost of many lives , it is then that the true moment you'll see what the US president is made of and the criticisms will still follow their path....

Good Luck to Us ALL..

[rictus01]

Yeah very butch, isn't that what the UN is for? bureaucratic I'll agree but at least we get valid reasons not mythical "weapons of mass destruction" lies.

[davepreston]

I agree and disagree with you on this one , i agree that he should be the next president .

As for the trigger happy comment i so disagree with you , Sadam had to go the guy was building himself up to another potential Hitler (if you don't believe that I'll be more than happy to send you videos of his work , I've watched a lot of them and they're not pretty) ......First off i give Bush credit for his actions , none of the leaders ever got the balls to go after scum bags like him even after attacks were present from them here ...Take Clinton for example , do you remember USS COLE , The Attempted bombings of the Twin Towers during his presidency?(he didn't do **** about it)...Let me ask you this , what would you have done when your country was attacked and thousands of lives were taken under your presidency?
..

let me just put my 10 pence in on that one, bush is as thick as mince that why he was a bad leader as for iraq was there on telic 1 so dont need the videos but thanks for the offer, saddam was an evil **** and we were right to shift him ( should have done it the first time) problem now will be how obama will deal with it from now on ( sounds like there about to call it soon) hopefully he will try and leave us out of any more we got enough on are plate at the minute

[hang man]

Yeah very butch, isn't that what the UN is for? bureaucratic I'll agree but at least we get valid reasons not mythical "weapons of mass destruction" lies.


The UN is a Pussy (cat) , you talk about mithycal "weapons of mass destruction" , you have to undarstand that Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction i'll send you a PM with videos of his pretty work , if you like .

[davepreston]

its obama here we go again

[rictus01]

The UN is a Pussy (cat) , you talk about mithycal "weapons of mass destruction" , you have to undarstand that Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction i'll send you a PM with videos of his pretty work , if you like .

whether the UN is a pussy cat or not, is not the point, it is the elected body for international action, simply that.

there are a great many truely evil rulers around the world, when our Blaire lied to us all to get us in there in the first place it was obviously because he couldn't find a legitimate reason and just grabbed the one thrown from bush.

[BanannaMan]

and just grabbed the one thrown from bush.



Which was the same total lie Bush was telling the US....

[rictus01]

indeed.

[Dangerous Dave]

there are a great many truely evil rulers around the world, when our Blaire lied to us all to get us in there in the first place it was obviously because he couldn't find a legitimate reason and just grabbed the one thrown from bush.
+ 1, there were no WMD in Iraq and there was no evidence from the intelligence gathered to suggest there ever was any prior to the investigation.

It was a made up story, an excuse used to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Yes, he was not an angel but he posted no threat to the west and we do not have the right to police the world.

its obama here we go again
He wants to start on Iran, more blood and money spending to come....

[hang man]

whether the UN is a pussy cat or not, is not the point, it is the elected body for international action, simply that.

there are a great many truely evil rulers around the world, when our Blaire lied to us all to get us in there in the first place it was obviously because he couldn't find a legitimate reason and just grabbed the one thrown from bush.



I have to ask you this question because it is important , what would you have done had you been the leader of your country ????? keeping in mind that no one single individual knows it all and that the leaders have to go by their advisers on each particular subject and facts....Each Country considering allies or not looks out for their own well being , this is a no brainer. There is so much more involved in Politics that we as citizens will never know the full extent .


In the words of wise men "To Secure Peace Is To Prepare for War"

"keep your friends close but keep your enemy even closer"

[rictus01]

What anyone else would do is dictated by there agenda, given that question in isolation it's meaningless.

However What I wouldn't do (being the elected leader of a country) is ignore all my intelligence sources/ analyses and advisors and take on faith someone else’s reasoning without any cooberation.

not a single UK organisation or agency advised our PM of WMD, it only came from you lot, blaire was an idiot and took a gamble on the americans being right and lost.

Whilst I agree it's important what was and why it was done, I feel the bigger issue how the system was circumvented.

Oh and the "In the words of wise men "To Secure Peace Is To Prepare for War"" let me put it another way nearer to whats been done recently " fools rush in" given the US basically borrowed the money from around the world to wage war, how wise was it not to wait for UN direct backing ?

[hang man]

What anyone else would do is dictated by there agenda, given that question in isolation it's meaningless.

However What I wouldn't do (being the elected leader of a country) is ignore all my intelligence sources/ analyses and advisors and take on faith someone else’s reasoning without any cooberation.

not a single UK organisation or agency advised our PM of WMD, it only came from you lot, blaire was an idiot and took a gamble on the americans being right and lost.

Whilst I agree it's important what was and why it was done, I feel the bigger issue how the system was circumvented.

Oh and the "In the words of wise men "To Secure Peace Is To Prepare for War"" let me put it another way nearer to whats been done recently " fools rush in" given the US basically borrowed the money from around the world to wage war, how wise was it not to wait for UN direct backing ?


Desperate times call for desperate measures , personally i don't agree with world wide conflict , however world wide conflict is always present and a death sentence to those who can not protect themselves from it , millions of lives are lost around the world every year in conflicts that you never heard of and will never hear of , making the everyday conflicts a ridiculous concern on a global scale......Again we only think of ourselves and the benefits we could acquire if we have things our own way.....So how can you afford to base your trust on the UN who announces that they will be going into Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction... Come On if you were the one making them and planning to use them would you say "sure come on in and have a look "!!!!! Or would you first hide and move everything first before you invite the UN to have a look....That would be like me inviting the police to come into my house Whilst leaving a pot plant right there in plain view...

......In any case conflict is inevitable , beliefs and rights will be compromised , human lives will be lost , corruption will persist, conflict of interest will always reign , the more technology improves the more ways of killing one another will improve , civilization will eventually cease to exist

The End:(

[BanannaMan]

+ 1, there were no WMD in Iraq and there was no evidence from the intelligence gathered to suggest there ever was any prior to the investigation.

It was a made up story, an excuse used to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Yes, he was not an angel but he posted no threat to the west and we do not have the right to police the world.



Absolute truth...every word.





Come On if you were the one making them and planning to use them would you say "sure come on in and have a look "!!!!! Or would you first hide and move everything first before you invite the UN to have a look....



Saddam's supposed shell game was not to hide anything from the UN.
It was to convince his neighboring countries that he might actually have such weaponry... (and thus preventing attacks)....when in fact he had nothing to speak of after the 1st Gulf war.

[hang man]

Absolute truth...every word.









Saddam's supposed shell game was not to hide anything from the UN.
It was to convince his neighboring countries that he might actually have such weaponry... (and thus preventing attacks)....when in fact he had nothing to speak of after the 1st Gulf war.


Youre must be kidding , you need to pitch that theory to the neighboring countries who Sadam had his Brother Chemical Ali exterminate town after towns (women and children were on the menu)...If you don't call that mass destruction then I'd hate to see what Saddam would have been capable of during "Real Mass Destruction"

I also agree and don't agree with Dangerous Daves comment . we don't have the right to Police other countries , but we also have the right to make sure we don't become fried Bacon because we didn't.

[BanannaMan]

Youre must be kidding , you need to pitch that theory to the neighboring countries who Sadam had his Brother Chemical Ali exterminate town after towns (women and children were on the menu)...If you don't call that mass destruction then I'd hate to see what Saddam would have been capable of during "Real Mass Destruction"

I also agree and don't agree with Dangerous Daves comment . we don't have the right to Police other countries , but we also have the right to make sure we don't become fried Bacon because we didn't.




kidding???....No
Those attacks on his neighboring countires all happened prior to the first Gulf war which is why he feared reprisal.
If you had done to your neighbors what he did to his...and someone wiped your military completely out....would you want them to know???

Fried Bacon????
Iraq has never had the ability or intent to attack the US.

[hang man]

Those attacks on his neighboring countires all happened prior to the first Gulf war

Does that make it OK?.....


Iraq has never had the ability or intent to attack the US. Today 05:01 AM

Looking out for #1 as always , who gives a damn about the tourtured , murdered and executed.......Right , who cares it didn't happen in the west .

[BanannaMan]

Does that make it OK?.....

No.......
it means he didn't have weapons of mass detsruction after the first Gulf war. ...as Bush claimed for the reason of going to war....and why he played games with the UN inspectors.







Looking out for #1 as always , who gives a damn about the tourtured , murdered and executed.......Right , who cares it didn't happen in the west .



This goes on in China and Russia. Should we start World War III ???
No.... the US cannot and should not try to police the whole world.

And if you are caring for the Iraqi citizen's human rights ....remember the people we have freed from Saddam are the people trying to kill us and run us out of their country.

[hang man]

This goes on in China and Russia. Should we start World War III ???

No.... the US cannot and should not try to police the whole world.

Tell that to North Korea , or would you rather wait to have definite proof ...WW3 is only a few decades away and when s**t hits the fan your children will wish they had a big fan.

[Dangerous Dave]

Youre must be kidding , you need to pitch that theory to the neighboring countries who Sadam had his Brother Chemical Ali exterminate town after towns (women and children were on the menu)...If you don't call that mass destruction then I'd hate to see what Saddam would have been capable of during "Real Mass Destruction"
Do not believe what you have read on websites or seen on the TV, Ali was not working under the instructions of Saddam, although he had freedom in Iraq he was not acting under Saddam’s regime. I was one of the first British forces to enter Iraq; we were already in Bagdad when the attack started and locating targets. We were and intelligence gathering force behind enemy lines, we saw the truth!

Iraq has never had the ability or intent to attack the US.
+ 1

Saddam also never mentioned he had WMD; it was another false claim by the US to invade. Don't get me wrong, it was right for him to be removed from power so the country could move on and do what the citizens wanted.

Tell that to North Korea , or would you rather wait to have definite proof ...WW3 is only a few decades away and when s**t hits the fan your children will wish they had a big fan.
To this very day the British Government continues to action operations around the world, it is closer than many think!

[Warthog]

If we went into Iraq to stop terrorising his own people and near neighbours, then why aren't we going into Zimbabwe, north Korea etc? Exactly.

[Sosha]

it was right for him to be removed from power so the country could move on and do what the citizens wanted.

Not convinced the citizens are actually better off yet...

[Paul the 6th]

why oh why did I start this thread

[simesb]

If we went into Iraq to stop terrorising his own people and near neighbours, then why aren't we going into Zimbabwe, north Korea etc? Exactly.

There is no single answer, but among them are

1. Iraq has oil and is fairly central in a large oil producing region, Zimbabwe and North Korea aren't
2. Support of neighbouring countries to carry out the actions
3. North Korea is better armed than Iraq. (I stand to be corrected, but does it not have one of the largest standing armies in the world?)

[Sosha]

:laughat:why oh why did I start this thread

[Dangerous Dave]

If we went into Iraq to stop terrorising his own people and near neighbours, then why aren't we going into Zimbabwe, north Korea etc? Exactly.
Because the Americans can, have, and will continue to gain from it.

Not convinced the citizens are actually better off yet...
No not yet, but that is the key word... Yet!

We need to withdraw, allow the country to unite together under there own sole control.

[hob]

you have to undarstand that Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction i'll send you a PM with videos of his pretty work , if you like .

Indeed he was, but pretending you can run any middle east country with diplomacy is not going to work, it requires fear & bloodshed, unfortunate but removing him didn't generate peace just more bloodshed, will always be gang warfare out there just with different leaders.

[northwind]

I'm not sure I'm for Obama... But when you heard McCain's plans to deal with the economic situation, it was hard not to want the other guy to win. Well beyond absurd, he came up with the approach that would make the least use of government investment and would reward the people most responsible for the crash (central to his plan was to nationalise toxic debt, but at the original market value not the current value). Palin as VP was pretty horrifying too.

I don't know if the right team won but the wrong team definately lost. I even like McCain, if he'd been able to actually decide what he believe and fight for it he'd have been a powerful candidate but even before he was the nominee he was ruled by focus groups.

I believe Obama's spoken about returning force to Afghanistan... Which I kind of agree with despite being a commie pinko liberal. We're already in there, we can't undo that, and since we lost interest things have gone way downhill, we created a power vacuum then lost interest. But then I'd been hoping for international action against the taliban since about the time they took kabul.

First off i give Bush credit for his actions , none of the leaders ever got the balls to go after scum bags like him even after attacks were present from them here ...Take Clinton for example , do you remember USS COLE , The Attempted bombings of the Twin Towers during his presidency?(he didn't do **** about it)...Let me ask you this , what would you have done when your country was attacked and thousands of lives were taken under your presidency?


Dunno. I think I'd probably NOT invade a country that had no connection to the attacks whatsoever though. Especially not if it meant pushing a huge amount of my military and economic strength into a project that wouldn't remove a single threat, but would give others more motivation to attack. That would be silly.

I'm quite glad Hussein's dead, all things considered. But the whole thing's been badly handled to the extent it's almost unbelievable. Don't try and make this black and white, just because people were against this war doesn't mean they liked Hussein. Nothing in this world was ever black and white, as far as I can see we should fight anyone who believes it's so on general principles.